Posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:58 PM PST by Jean S
"Your honor this agreement means if microsoft violates the
terms the court will have the authority to look at
bill gates sternly and wag your index finger and say stop that."
"Your honor we have achieved corporate peace in our time."
"Your honor this is really tough. please stop laughing."
"No your honor this paragaph does not mean you are bill
gates bitch. Yes I know it says that in black and
white. The word judicial bitch is open to interpritation"
"No your honor the other judges will not call you wussy boy."
"Your honor, just think of your legacy"
Translation: blink
[[shudder]]
I just got that feeling I used to get when watching Clinton speak.
Seriously? You don't know the reason for this?
Because prosecutors are political creatures. Theoretically, the judge is an 'unbiased' person representing the 'public good', which the prosecutors are not. The judge plays the role of 'plaintiff', in place of 'the people'.
The last time a voluntary settlement was reached between the govt and MS, the judge nixed it. Then the MS-friendly Appeals court -- yes, the same one -- removed that judge. The new judge, Penfield Jackson, okayed the decision. He was later, of course, removed himself.
New to all these legal concepts, eh?
The theory goes that the judges are appointed for a long period of time, and are therefore not subject to being fired for making a politically unpopular idea. They're certainly more independent than Prosecutors, who can be fired today if the boss gets a big enough payoff from the criminal facing prosecution.
Prosecutors, of course, have to do what they're told, or else.
It's a good theory. Of course it doesn't always work, but in general it holds true to form.
Nope. That's a lie -- unless you never actually looked and just don't know any better.
From the appeals court decision:
Thus, although Microsoft alleged only appearance of bias, not actual bias, we have reviewed the record with painstaking care and have discerned no evidence of actual bias.
And
Although Microsoft challenged very few of the findings as clearly erroneous, we have carefully reviewed the entire record and discern no basis to suppose that actual bias infected his factual findings.
The judge said a few things to the press that "sound bad", but in no way acted biased against MS.
And *that* is the truth.
Again, from the appeals court decision:
The earliest interviews we know of began in September 1999, shortly after the parties finished presenting evidence but two months before the court issued its Findings of Fact.
The judge was stupid enough to think he could be honest with reporters about what he had learned of MS, and said some uncomplementary things about MS to the press, because of MS's conduct.
Again, from the decision:
We recognize that it would be extraordinary to disqualify a judge for bias or appearance of partiality when his remarks arguably reflected what he learned, or what he thought he learned, during the proceedings.
And
Disqualification is mandatory for conduct that calls a judge's impartiality into question.
It was mandatory once MS asked for it. MS is judge shopping, in the finest old tradition.
Thank you for the opportunity to make my case.
Dude -- read the appeals court decision. You're blindly incorrect.
Check the post to Shrub2000, above. The first interviews with Auletta were *after* all evidence was in. The judge was unbiased, and made up his mind on the basis of the evidence. He found MS had done bad things, and said so.
MS complained, and had him removed. Judge shopping.
You really need to read these things, arguing without facts won't likely increase your credibility.
Frankly, I have to still point out that Judge Jackson did something wrong. He should not have commented on the case, period. This is pretty serious misconduct on his part. Why didn't the states try to defend him in the hearing?
Oops, sorry.
The states and all *did* defend him rather well. But the appeals court decided that removal was mandatory if *any* appearance of bias developed, even if no real bias was evident.
That's actually the way I prefer it.
The judge should have waited to give the interviews.
Um -- so the appeals court's decision that he wasn't biased doesn't move you at all?
See, my point is, I looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion. That conclusion is supported *by* the evidence, and was supported by the appeals court and Supreme Court.
You are arguing that the facts do not matter, and that there was a biased judge. You refuse to even look up the facts, and never even read the conclusions of the court to see what the truth is -- even when your errors are pointed out.
Now which position is 'Clintonista'?
You defend blindly. I defend with quotes from the legal record.
Remember debating with Clintonistas? You post evidence, laws, all that, and they just blindly say it was a frame up, their guy is innocent, this is all about 'sex'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.